I think for the most part it is not. While I admit that I haven't played that many games for this recent generation of consoles, from what I have played, it seems like some games you really get your money's worth but for others they are simply riding the coattails of the premium quality games and charging a ridiculously overpriced amount when newly released, with few consumers really challenging this price model.

Firstly, I would like to point out that it really depends on the game and the gamer.

I wouldn't pay that much for GTA 4 if my life counted on it... but would have no problems with that price for DMC 4.

Secondly, prices of games have drastically dropped. Do you recall how much brand new SNES games use to cost. I have the poster for Secret of Evermore that came with the original game. Let me quote some of the advertisements from the back:












And this was back in 1995. Most of the time, things get more expensive later down the road. So I think we should be greatful they still aren't as expensive as they were back then. I hardly see the problem.

This comes after they switched to disc technology, which was supposed to keep the game prices low. Brand-new $50 games versus $70 carts was the sh*t.

Now we're creeping back up into that level. I wonder how much they'd cost nowadays.

I have to say, I don't buy nearly as many new games as I used to when they were 50. At 60, over half of 100 bucks, I'm really picky with it.

I've bought Bioshock new (in like December), and will buy Fable 2 new. That's about it. Oh, and maybe GTAIV.

Now, on the Wii, I've bought Mario Galaxy, Kart Wii, Umbrella Chronicles, Metroid Prime 3, Smash Brawl, so on all brand-new. But they are only 50 bucks. It's psychological in that respect.

I promise you, you will find that Bioshock was worth ever cent.

Games take more money to make than to sell. So I guess 50 bucks is reasonable.

I'd only pay $50 unless the game was really, really awesome.

I was actually kind of upset to have to pay $40 for "The World Ends with You", but I did anyways. Square's DS games seem to carry a $10 more price tag... but like I said, it's usually an awesome project.

If I got an X-Box 360, I bet I'd be more used to $60 games, though. Keep that in mind.

I don't mind paying the price, its not like I can't afford it anyway. I bought MGS4 the limited edition for 90.00

Well, seeing as I bought GH3 for 100 and then a second for 100 (to have two guitars before they sold the wireless separate) and Rockband for 170, Steel Battalion for 200, and so forth... 60 doesn't sound too bad.

And remember folks, used games cost less! I have well over 40 games on 360 and I only paid full retail on like 17 of them.

The only time 60 isn't worth it is when you pre-order Hulk for 60 when it plays like it cost 20

I payed $59.99 for Halo 3 and bought all the downloadable maps and I can honestly say that I think it is well worth it for that game for me personally . But I am not so much talking about that.

I am talking about the fact the every game (with few exceptions) on the 360 and PS3 (and Wii?) charges $59.99 at release. It is though they all think they deserve that price from the start. Sure if nobody buys it the price will drop, but it is more the attitude that they would either overvalue their product or undervalue there consumer that bothers me.

Also, I would think that back in the SNES day, there were much less games. If I am wrong, please correct me. If I am right, this adds to the point that I am making where (insert crappy title here) says that if Bungie can charge $59.99 for Halo 3 certainly we can too.

Well tbh if bungie can then why not others? they are just hoping to make some cash and if someone doesn't know what they are buying, its kinda their own fault. If you don't know about a game don't buy it or don't complain. Of course I mean 'you' in general and not you bo. In fact I am one of those who should have looked into a game before buying. I bought the hulk months before it came out and when it arrived I was very disappointed.

But I wasn't angry. Its my own fault and that stuff happens. I learned a lesson.

Too much for me. 49.99 is where I draw the line. Any game more than that had better be well worth it. Which is why I chose the Wii and DS instead of other systems. For the game selection first, of course, but with lower prices on games, I can buy more games (or save more).

Wii tends to sell games at $10 less than 360 and PS3. Some games were worth the money, some weren't. Since I like football and such, when I'm not out playing with friends, I play on the x-box, thus it's a nice investment, for me at least. Gears of War is worth it when you play multiplayer (online)... the plot makes no f*cking sense.

Point being, some games aren't worth the price tag and should be lowered.

The first thing I thought of when I read the OP was the prices of games 10 years ago.. which lantis already pointed out.

A good way to guage it is to consider how much time you're getting for your dollar. A game with decent replay value could easily net you at least 60 hours, which would be less than a dollar per hour. Hell, I have 170 hours clocked on FFX.. thats like 35 cents per hour.

60 bucks isn't really that bad, and as long as you're not ripping through games in like 10 hours (or buying games that only last 10 hours -_-) then it's also a pretty cheap way to spend your free time.

Games cost more to develop. Longer development times, and it doesn't help that 360 and PS3 development involves creation of incredibly high-end graphics. Wii games can be cheaper because it's still only as powerful as last generation, and developers can get away with creating games that aren't photorealistic.

In that sense, it is fair. But still not very welcome. So what if SNES games cost more than they do nowadays? New games cost more than they did last generation. Plus we're no longer squandering money from our parents.

"So what"? That "so what" is a pretty major point. Its CHEAPER now.

Plus, the fact that some gamers arent getting money from their parents now is even more reason for people not to gripe about it.

Most of us (or myself, at least), didn't start paying for our own games until they were already cheaper. We missed out on the expensiveness of the SNES era. Thus, for us, it's the first time we're experiencing higher prices for video games. Thus: you say SNES games were more expensive? So what? It didn't affect us.

That's a pretty pathetic reason to be upset with prices.

.. In fact, it seems pretty ass-backwards. It may not have done any damage to your wallet, but you should still be able to understand that prices are better now than they were.

I'd compare it to people who like to "stand up" against the sh*t their grandparents, or in some cases even parents, died to get for you. Just accept that you're lucky you even have what you have.

It actually is a good point to say "so what" about the prices back in the day. It counters the apologies for the prices now. Either the prices back in the day were even more overpriced but that means they can still be overpriced now or the reasons that they were so expensive were justified based on conditions back then that do not necessarily apply now (lack of supply of games, expense of cartridges, etc.). Just because somebody was both punching me in the face and kicking me in the nuts doesn't mean that I appreciate that they are only kicking me in the nuts now. But as was said, the prices decreased and now they are back up again.

My point is to fight this by not paying for shiz. Let them charge what they want and let us be responsible enough consumers to not let them get away with it by only buying games that are worth it and not shiz for $59.99 just because it is new and on the PS3 or the XBOX 360.

Us cutting back on games is going to help lower the prices for games just as much as people who've been buying more fuel efficient cars (hybrid or non petrolium as well) or walking ect has for cutting prices for gas. It just doesn't work that way.

Honestly, I don't think that games are generally getting worse, I just think that we, as we get older, lose patiences with games.

I though assassin's creed was a pretty good game. But once I beat it, I was done with it. Though there was a boat load of other things do to. If I were to set out to do them, then I'm sure I would have gotten every penny's worth of the game (specially based on Lone's money per hour ratio). If I were allot younger when I played it, I'm pretty sure I would have spent the time and done everything... and probably would have enjoyed it much more.

I may be completely missing the mark here, but I think it's worth a mention.

$59.99 is actually pretty cheap compared to some of the more important sh*t out there, like food for a home. Individual food items may be "cheap," but once you get enough food to last you maybe a week or two, your paying more for that then you would a game you only pay $60 for that you may play for several years. Games are more of an investment, I guess. Besides, game prices seem cheap to me due to the fact that all the guitar sh*t I want is all over $80 except for picks and straps and strings.